HORRAH FOR NETFLIX

     Netflix is not what it used to be, specifically its fictional films and series.  It has grown tremendously in amount of endeavors created, in variety of genres, and in the stars who appear. From a critic's perspective, Netflix has also evolved in its diverse narratives and styles of production. Meaning first that the fictional stories are now more interesting , provocative and "twisty" regarding their plots, all leading to the programs' popularity. Meaning secondly,  the ambiguous nature of the characters. Do we hate or love the protagonists?  Is the world good or evil ? Or both? Or neither? Meaning thirdly, the interplay of styles and genres, not any one of them particularly conventional. 

     Two rather recent works, OZARK and THE PROM, are cases in point.  The series, Ozark, initially got this critic's attention because of the Emmy nominations it received; The Prom featured Meryl Streep and Nicole Kidman singing and dancing in a musical which was sure to offer delicious surprises ( and also showed Kidman giving a much better performance than her HBO's THE UNDOING  ). Looking deeper, both works revealed narratives that were not easy to predict, or, with Ozark, easy to follow.  While The Prom followed  basic steps in plot development ( introduction of characters and a problem, barriers to overcoming the problem and, finally, the resolution ), there were still surprises concerning the primary protagonists' endeavors ( Streep's  and Kidman's musical talents were unpredictably good ).             

     Ozark's plot was much more complicated, as the characters ' problems and barriers became more complex with each episode. Each program kept the audience guessing. Who would be killed next? Who would be betrayed next? Who was making a big mistake that would influence the rest of his/her lives? And, of course, who would be having sex with whom?

     The characters' ambiguity is another aspect of the works, making the action provocative, lively and food-for-thought. For example, The Prom's mysteriousness deals with sexual preferences because we are not always sure if Streep and Kidman are, indeed, lesbians. On the other hand, ambiguity in Ozark is more extensive, accounting for an important part of the theme. Both Jason Bateman ( Marty Byrde) and his wife, Laura Linney ( Wendy Byrde ) are committed parents and loyal friends, yet their moral compasses often change,  subject as they are to extramarital affairs and flexible values. 

     Bateman is particularly ambiguous. The opening rural shots show him on a lake in a boat, thus suggesting a connection to a comforting and natural world ( a "good place"). The second scene has Bateman sitting in an office, surrounded by glass and steel buildings, conveying an opposite bond with an urban, cold environment ( a " bad place"). This potent juxtaposition produces a contradiction that continues throughout Ozark. ( Another opposition is apparent in the character of Bateman's assistant, Julia Garner (Ruth Langmore ), who vacillates between good and bad intentions, between murderous acts and those of salvation ). 

     Styles and genres in The Prom and Ozark are equally arresting and introduce an aesthetic duality. For instance, The Prom's genre has a Music Video "look" and feel ( as expected ), but its style often reminds us of Magic Realism, an approach that is unique in modern cinema. Moreover, the film's pastel, candy colors promote an "other worldly" setting where many may find another style, surrealistic.

     There is also an interplay between styles and genres in Ozark. Stylistically, consider its realistic way of representing the indigenous area, although it was mostly shot near Atlanta. Yet there is a surrealistic, fantasy- like ambience about it as well that is haunting.  Genre-wise, it is at once a horror movie in addition to a crime drama and a soap opera. No film has had quite a similar combination, perhaps, than the TV series, TWIN PEAKS, by director David Lynch. ( A powerful sense of place distinguishes both works. ) 

    What else can we expect from Netflix?

                                                            

 

 

                                                                         Follow The Money

                                                                                                BY

                                                                                            Ruby Baresch

    

      If you were a news media editor, you would be well aware that your product is known as the first draft of history. The citizenry needs to know what the president is saying and, especially, doing; the president, in turn, communicates via news conferences which the media then broadcast, print, and post online. That’s your job.

      Yet you would also be accused of giving the current president an unnecessary and undesirable 24/7 bully pulpit for unpresidential behavior, which may serve to “normalize” this behavior, i.e. that future presidents will feel free to behave in similar ways.

     There have been theories about whether representation of bad behavior, evil doing, and so on, on film or on home screens inevitably valorizes or glorifies the subject such that viewers will wish to emulate it.  No final word yet, but for those who find President Trump’s social media communications reprehensible, it can be worrisome to contemplate such normalization.

     Trump is not the first president to use popular new technology to reach the public. FDR used radio, JFK television, which are news outlets, and now Trump uses Twitter, which is not. Still, many who love him and many who hate him have become obsessed with reading his tweets as if they were news items. Then news outlets like CNN and MSNBC show them and analyze them. Thus those of us not on Twitter can read many, but not nearly all, of his tweets on regular news programs.

     I expect I’m not the only one who has nearly worn out the mute button on my remote: I need to know what the president is saying but I don’t want to hear him say it, not even on PBS. We are probably going to remember more of Trump’s words than those of his predecessor, which I find unsettling. No-Drama-Obama gave us many memorable moments, but they did not send tv ratings to the roof.   

     The larger question is how much, and what, do we the people need to know about what our president is doing in private. Is our interest in a president’s extramarital affairs, for instance, merely prurient? Hard to say. Until the 90s and Clinton’s presidency, journalists did not report a president’s sexual behavior in office. That JFK was seeing unidentified women in private was not known by the public until much later. This was not to protect the president, but because, as Reporter Marvin Kalb has said, it was not thought newsworthy.

     What was newsworthy was that we were covertly providing naval and air cover to a group of Cuban exiles trying to invade Cuba; when this became known JFK withdrew the support. The Cuban missile crisis followed.

     Would the outcome have been different if the president’s sexual affairs had been known?

      Who will we be without Donald Trump?, asks Frank Bruni in the NY Times. He is referring to journalists and to the news organizations that have prospered mightily since 2016. Print media had been diminishing for some time, and has continued to do so. Online media and tv, though, have thrived. So here is the third factor that our hypothetical newsmedia editor has to consider when deciding what to publish: ratings and revenue have soared to new heights . The executives at CNN and MSNBC are worried about the future when Joe Biden will  take up some of the airspace now devoted to Trump.

     It may be cynical to suppose that the primary reason for the 24/7 coverage of the president has been that he is an unprecedented audience draw. Which has resulted in the ratings and revenue surges. Well, in the immortal words of Deep Throat, Follow the money.